Edmund P. Gaines and his wife brought a case to the US Supreme Court against Beverly Chew, Richard Relf, and others in 1844. The dispute was over land that had been granted by Congress to Edmund's father-in-law for military services rendered during the Revolutionary War. After his death, Edmund inherited the land but it was later sold without his knowledge or consent by one of the defendants who claimed he had power of attorney from Edmund's deceased father-in-law. The court found that there was no evidence of such an agreement between them and ruled in favor of Gaines stating that any sale made without their knowledge or consent would be void as they were not legally bound to honor it due to lack of proper authority from either party involved in making such a transaction.

In the case of Edmund P. Gaines and Wife v. Beverly Chew, Richard Relf, and Others, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have dismissed the appeal on technical grounds but instead should have decided it on its merits. He noted that although there were some irregularities in how the original suit was brought before them by Gaines' wife alone without his consent or knowledge, this did not mean they could ignore their duty to decide whether she had any legal right to bring such an action against her husband's creditors for relief from foreclosure proceedings initiated against him. Furthermore, Taney argued that even if Mrs. Gaines lacked standing to sue as a married woman under Virginia law at the time (which prohibited women from bringing suits independently), this did not necessarily mean she was barred from seeking relief through other means available under common law principles of equity jurisdiction; thus he believed it would be wrong for them to dismiss her claim out of hand without considering all possible avenues open to her given these circumstances.